29/10/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. More union trouble

for Labour in Scotland as the man at the centre of the Falkirk selection

row and the dispute at Grangemouth resigns.

The Government has another go at at making the case for spending ?43

billion on some fast trains and track.

When Mo met Tommy - we'll be speak to the man who tried to change the

leader of the EDL's views about Muslims.

And what on earth would persuade the son or daughter of an MP to... Well,

become an MP? All that in the next hour. And with

us for the whole programme today is a man whose career's an inspiration

for any aspiring politico - former Home Secretary and Foreign

Secretary, and soon to be former MP, Jack Straw. Welcome to the

programme. Thank you. Let's start with foreign affairs, because this

afternoon the Prime Minister is hosting the leaders of Pakistan and

Afghanistan, Nawaz Sharif and Hamid Karzai, here in London. The

discussions were instigated by David Cameron last year to work towards a

peace deal in Afghanistan and the neighbouring areas of Pakistan. So

will anything be achieved at today's meeting?

I think so, and I hope so. Pakistan and Afghanistan's problems are

essentially the same, and there has been a great deal of enmity between

the governments. It runs right across the border, and Hamid Karzai

once the Pakistan government to release some of the Taliban leaders,

but he also wants the Pakistan government to be firmer about

terrorism across the border, so it is quite complicated. And is now as

Sharif up for that? Because that is the key issue. Notwithstanding the

fact that it is highly probable that part of the intelligence service are

implicated in the running of the Taliban, their security forces have

lost many more people than imagined in fighting against terrorism. But

these discussions are much better than not having discussions. What

about the talks between the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government?

Can those be restarted? They can. It is like the talks that Tony Blair

and John Major before him instigated with the provisional IRA. You are

essentially taking a terrorist organisation out from using

terrorism as its main political methods to using argument as its

main political method. It can often be a very complicated and difficult

process. But it is the only way, isn't it? It is, and there are

examples across the world that show that you have to do it if you want

an end to conflict. And will these talks kick-start that? They will

start it. There will be a flash, but the situation will not be resolved

just like that. These are incremental changes. But holding

talks is an important step forward. What about Hamid Karzai's future.

When American and British troops leave at the end of next year, what

will happen to him? Will he survive? Will he physically

survive? Yes, I think he will. I meant politically! Well, people do

keep trying to kill him. He has a very effective security around him,

so I suspect he will be able to personally survive. And he will be a

big force in Afghan politics. He comes from a very distinguished

family, indirectly related to the last king of Afghanistan, and he is

a brilliant communicator. So I don't think it will be the last of Hamid

Karzai at all. Thank you. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is: what are parliamentary authorities planning

to spend a quarter of a million pounds on?

Is it: a) Upgrading the gym. B) Straightening Big Ben. C) Raising

the Speaker John Bercow's chair. Or d) refurbishing the Commons' bars?

At the end of the show Jack will give us the correct answer.

Ed Miliband is under fresh pressure to re-open the investigation into

the candidate selection process in Falkirk. Earlier this year Labour

suspended the selection process in Falkirk after launching an

investigation into Unite's recruitment drive to the local party

after allegations of vote-rigging there. That investigation found no

wrongdoing, but a cache of e-mails released to the Sunday Times at the

weekend appears to implicate Unite in Scotland in a concerted attempt

to undermine Labour's initial investigation. At the centre of the

scandal is Stevie Deans, the constituency party chairman in

Falkirk, whose e-mails appear to reveal the scale of the plot. So say

the Sunday Times. Mr Deans was also the Unite boss at the Grangemouth

oil refinery until yesterday, when he resigned from his job at the

facility. Back in May, Mr Deans was suspended from the Labour Party

while an investigation was launched into allegations of vote-rigging and

the methods Unite used to recruit new members to the local party. In

July, Unite threatened industrial action at Grangemouth after the

owner of the chemical plant, INEOS, suspended Mr Deans, accusing him of

using company time for union business. In September Labour found

no evidence of wrongdoing in the Falkirk selection after key evidence

was withdrawn, and Mr Deans was reinstated to the party. But a cache

of e-mails from Mr Dean's work account at Grangemouth leaked to the

Sunday Times appear to show that Mr Deans oversaw the retraction of key

witness statements from the initial inquiry. Unite denies that anything

untoward took place. Meanwhile the row at Grangemouth between INEOS and

Unite over the treatment of Mr Deans continued until last week when a

deal was struck to keep the plant open. Well, a little earlier I spoke

to Eric Joyce, the current MP for Falkirk. He sits as an independent

after being suspended from Labour following a fight in a Commons bar

last year. He is standing down at the next election. I began by asking

him why he wanted the inquiry re-opened. The enquiry is very

significant for the Labour Party. It was focused on Falkirk, but it was

clearly a problem with Unite which went across the Labour Party. I

believe Unite came along and interfered with witnesses, and the

enquiry was stopped in Falkirk. That meant the Labour Party what off the

hook. What do you think they were trying to do, Unite, under

allegations of trying to influence the selection in your view? Their

political purpose at the moment is to move the Labour Party to the

left. It wants to put as many of its own friends and Labour colleagues

into labour seat in order to follow the whip of the leadership of Unite.

Labour in Falkirk was a target for that when I sadly left the party,

and that therefore was the place where they put most effort in. Much

more will be made public in due course. What about the chair of the

Labour Party and Unite member, Stevie Denes? It is quite clear he

spent much of his time at his employment instead of helping people

to hang on to their jobs. He created a battle by stressing the importance

of the Labour Party in the local Falkirk selection. He sits there is

the chair of the Labour Party and who will be chairing this meeting

next Sunday? It will be him. That cannot be a fair and reasonable

situation. What action would you like Ed Miliband to take? I think he

should reopen the enquiry, and carry it on with the officials who were

there. We know that it was terribly undermined, but the implications of

the failure to carry out the enquiry are severe for the party. This is a

watershed moment, and it is important that the leadership of the

party to not bottle it out. Eric Joyce, MP. We did ask Unite for

an interview but no one was available. They say there is no

evidence even in the e-mails that have been printed by the Sunday

Times that Mr Deans did anything untoward is at all. Should they

reopen the investigation? They should actively consider it. The

enquiry didn't exactly find no evidence. It was faced with a

situation where there had been clear evidence of concerns about what had

been going on, but that evidence, key evidence, was later withdrawn by

those concerned. So there was then and absence of evidence, and in that

absence, it was not able to proceed. And Unite was cleared? Sort

of. I have not seen the e-mails in question, but I think there was a

case presented by the Sunday Times for that to be further questions

which will need to be dealt with. So I don't think this is going to go

away. It runs into the catastrophic tactics adopted by Unite in respect

of Grangemouth. To be blunt, my analysis is that Len McCluskey put

in turn union Unite politics before the interests of their members at

Grangemouth plant. That is a very serious claim, because unions are

there to represent their workers, and 800 people lost their jobs. It

is a serious claim, but it is hard to see any other explanation for

what happened. You had Stevie Deans being subject to discipline, because

as it is now clear, he was using company time and money to spend on

Labour Party activities, and not just the odd e-mail, but a

substantial part of his time. When he is disciplined, strike action is

threatened, and that spirals into further action. Mr Deans has now

resigned, presumably because he accepts the strength of the case

against him. Whichever way you look at what happened at Grangemouth, it

is hard to see how on earth the Unite union could have ended up with

those tactics where they lead their troops up to the top of the hill,

they were refusing to make any kind of concessions with INEOS. They said

they were calling the company's bluff, and the company was

exaggerating the losses. They did, but there are better ways of calling

people's bluff than to get almost to the point where the plant is closed.

You don't need to be a senior executive at INEOS to know that

there is substantial overcapacity at refineries across the world. He got

right to the top of the hill, and like the Duke of York, scurried back

down again. And what should Ed Miliband do? He has not either

wattled it all runs scared. I don't have access to anything except that

which I have read in the Sunday Times. It is for the committee to

make a judgement about whether there it is sufficient evidence to reopen

the inquiry. But if the public perception here is that something

went awry in Falkirk, despite the denials from Unite, and less Ed

Miliband does take action, won't he look as if he is levelling out? He

has been very tough about all of these things. When information first

came out about what had been going on in Falkirk, that is why the

inquiry was established. Should Stevie Deans still be the chair? If

there is something of concerned there, that needs to be looked at.

Is it a saga that does not reflect well on the national leadership of

Unite, both in respect of their relationship with the Labour Party,

but also in respect of their representation of their members at a

huge plantlike Grangemouth? Eric Joyce also said that Len McCluskey

should go. That is a matter for them. I would say that I would put

any money on the fact that his predecessor, Tony Woodley, would not

have landed his union in such an appalling position as Mr McCloskey

has done. What do you think it does in terms of public perception of

unions, and whether they are all working in the interest of they

unions? I have already had good relations -- always had good

relations with the unions, when I was Home Secretary and Justice

Secretary. Not just with major unions like UNISON, but I also had a

special relationship with the prison Association. I see people who come

in who haven't got union membership who have suffered grave injustices

by their employers, but you need to have unions recognising their

fundamental responsibilities to their members, and if they fail

that, they felt everything. The gunmen has published a new case for

HS2, the line connecting London with Birmingham, Leeds and mentored. --

the government. The Transport Secretary will be speaking later

this afternoon. The government says the scheme would boost the economy

to the tune of ?15 billion per year. We are joined now by the Transport

Minister, Susan Kramer. Welcome to the programme. As the argument of

HS2 shifted? We have been talking about this for the past year or so.

Initially the case was shorter journey times. That seems to have

been relegated below are arguments about capacity and connectivity and

economic benefits. Is that right? The discussion about capacity, which

is crucial, has been there from the beginning. I think a lot of the

conversational focus was on speedy because that had an element of

excitement to it. The real rationale for the project has always been

structured around capacity. I have been imposed two weeks. I have

already had a take note that the rail regulator has turned down a new

service because there is no room to put the additional trains on. We

really have a severe capacity problem. You mention the economic

benefits. That has been spoken about to a great extent. The estimate for

the economic benefit of HS2 has now been lowered. Instead of ?2 50 per

?1 spent, it is ?2 30. Will it go down again? We are confident around

these numbers that you refine them as you go along. This is a

sophisticated piece of refinements that is taking place. If anything, I

think most people think we are understating the benefits. Why as it

gone down, then? We had some costs coming out of environmental

measures. That was a sensible element to make sure was included in

this. So you do refine things. 2.3 is a good result for a large project

taking a long period of time. As you will know, these projects continue

to serve people over a long period of time. The actual demand increase,

the uses by passengers, is capped three years after we finished the

second stage of the project. In terms of winners and losers, do you

accept the conclusion of the KPMG report that some parts of the

country will just not then fed but will be losers, will become lest --

will just not -- will not just not benefits but will become losers? We

are looking at the proportion of the general wealth of the country is in

different places and has been affected, in a sense, by HS2. We

have got a whole economy that is benefiting by 15 billion. Places

that are closest to the line, that can build of the Iraq potential that

comes in -- the economic potential that comes in, they will do best. My

point is that actually there will be some areas that lose investment

because it would be redirected to those places you have just

described. In other words, they will become less competitive. There are

other projects going on at all times. In the next Parliament, we

are spending 73 billion in transport improvements. Only 17 billion is

going into HS2. There will be new trains, new electrification, new

projects all over the country. They will mainly benefit the closest

areas. This pattern of loss and gain is limited use. It is the

distribution of wealth. Can you confirm HS2 will not go ahead

without cross-party support? There has been cross-party support for

this. When I sat in the house of Lords, the voices from the Labour

benches and Labour peers with long experience in rail worker absolutely

firm and determined. The Labour front bench was determined and clear

that they are engaged fully with HS2. I expect that to be the case.

In the studio are one of the leading critics of HS2 on the Conservative

benches, and Jack Straw, a supporter of the scheme. Do you back on

alternative or does nothing me to come? No, quite the reverse. There

are lots of alternatives. Certainly there are other schemes and oppose

all that have been put forward by eminent railway engineers as well.

-- and proposals. Many of them, the implication is the cost would be

high, around ?20 billion. The disruption was something like 14

years of weekend closures to carry out alternatives so you could have

something like the capacity that would be created by HS2. I think

that they scaremongering story that was put about the government to try

to have a precursor to a business case. -- that was a scaremongering

story. We need to consider them at a time when we are having to pay the

bills of the last government, is this the best way to spend our money

on transport? If you are going to drop speed and moved to capacity and

connectivity, HS2, as it is currently configured, does not

connect properly with Heathrow or the Channel Tunnel rail link. It

doesn't go into the centre of cities. As you said yourself, Jo,

the has pointed out that there are going to be areas of the country

that see permanent loss. -- the report has pointed out. How

important is this line? There will be collectivity. If she wants to

ensure that there is a line through North London to connect it with HS1,

that is fine by me. But there will be more complaints from people in

the southern parts of the country. Let me say more about this. As the

Conservative Transport Secretary has pointed out, the Labour leaders of

major cities across the north-west and the North are all backing this.

So is the overwhelming majority of members of Parliament. We are at

silly clear that this will bring benefits. -- we are absolutely

clear. On this issue of if you have the benefits in Manchester, will it

chalk activity away from other areas? -- will it draw activity. The

north and north-west have been suffering for decades from a

disproportionate investment that has benefited your constituents in the

south and south-east. Look at crossrail. I am in favour of it. But

one of the reasons London and the south-east has done so well

economically is because it's transport is better. We need to

rebalance this. On the rate of return, it has come down from 2.50

to 2.30, and I tell you what, if my bank offered that... They won't! If

Labour were so supportive of this, Jack would know it would not be on a

one line whip on Thursday. If you are so concerned, as I am, with the

economic health and welfare of the north, this project would be started

in the north. We would be improving connectivity between those northern

lines. You are talking about a project that finishes in the north

by 2033 or beyond. If you build the Birmingham-London line,

international experience shows that it will start to suck things more

into London. Let me just say to you, Jack, Birmingham's leader and other

cities, they would be in favour of it. I wouldn't expect anything else.

Let Jack respond. The reason you have a line from London to

Birmingham is because that is where there is a capacity constraint. That

is not true. It is. The evidence is overwhelming. I see it for myself

every day. I use the West Coast Mainline, and look at Euston. When

it opened, the number of passengers was a tiny proportion compared to

now. The place is heaving. The tracks are heaving. There has been a

wonderful increase in train usage. But there was an increase in

capacity, which was disruptive for years. On the Trent Valley line,

there was a quadruple in. You have got to improve capacity in the

South. How disappointed are those northern leaders going to be if the

Chancellor pools the support? Ed Balls has been giving support. This

is a matter for the whole Labour Party. His job is to raise questions

about costs. I would also say this. To some extent, a project of this

kind, this scale, involves some act of faith. You have to get the

numbers right. Hang on a second. So did the Olympics. Why Szczesny

Cabinet committee on the Olympic for four years. -- I cared the come

beauty -- I chaired the Cabinet committee on the Olympics for four

years. Are you sure that Labour will continue supporting this? I'm sure.

We are supporting this on Thursday. If we were not, we would have our

troops are there. As you know, in opposition, you always have a one

line whip if you support something. How many Tory rebels do you think

there will be? On the Department for transport's own figures, use and is

only the second least crowded line. -- Euston. If you look at the

figures, it is 28% of the trains on the West Coast Mainline that are

full. With improvements, that could be improved. For example,

lengthening trains. We have to finish it up there. It was the first

time, thank you both, in 35 years that the presidents of Iran and the

US had spoken. The short conversation between Hassan Rouhani

and Barack Obama came off the last month's UN General assembly. Mr

Rouhani has struck a more moderate tone than its predecessors and says

he wants a deal on Iran's nuclear programme. Our guest of the day,

Jack Straw, thinks the new Iranian president is a man the West can do

business with. May I press the Prime Minister on

this issue of relations with Iran? With respect, his previous answer

sounded as if he had taken no account of the fact that since our

embassy was sacked by Ahmedinejad, there has been an election in Iran,

however imperfect. It has led to a different individual, Hassan

Rouhani, becoming president, who, to my knowledge, somebody the West and

the British Prime Minister can deal with. Could I ask you to deal

carefully with the Foreign Secretary to identify areas of common interest

and get them involved in solving Syria? I agree that of the election

of a president who has a greater, and to reform is a good step. I have

written to President Rouhani to rate a series of issues that need to be

settled between Britain and Iran. Above all, we need to see progress

on what the president has said himself is important, which is

trying to come to an agreement where Iran gives up the idea of you clear

weapons, and in return we see some relief on sanctions. That would be

major progress. -- the idea of nuclear weapons. This is not hoping

for the best. We have singled Iran has been capable of in the recent

past. We should go in to these discussions cautiously. David

Cameron. Joining us this Dr Matthew Levitt, who specialises in

counterterrorism and intelligence at the Washington Institute. Welcome to

the programme. First of all, do you agree that the tone has changed,

that Hassan Rouhani strikes a mocha Cilic we note? There is no way the

line at -- to deny that. What we need is more than statements. We

need to Seattle progress, tangible progress, not only on the

negotiations but on the human rights issues. -- to see tangible progress.

Are you asking too much in terms of limiting its nuclear programme and

what they would like? No question, we're talking about the nuclear

programme and they are talking about the sanctions. But there is middle

ground. We should be pursuing this devil Matic route seriously but with

eyes wide open. -- diplomatic route. There can be progress. We shouldn't

just take them at their word before there is actual progress on the

ground. While the negotiations have to be step-by-step, there are

multiple issues that have to be negotiated.

Matthew Levitt said that Iran has been known for deception. The mother

and father of their problems has been failure to describe -- provide

full disclosure about the nuclear activity. And they are still not

doing that. We are not certain. I don't disagree with what he is

saying about the need for care in the negotiations. But Hassan

Rouhani's election does represent a great opportunity for the West in

the way that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election represented a setback. I

hope that these negotiations with the permanent members of the

Security Council and Germany will make progress. But is there really a

substantive difference between Hassan Rouhani and Ahmadinejad? What

is the substantive difference between what is happening in Iran

now and previously? I have spent as much time as I can seeking to

understand the incredibly complicated power structure in Iran.

And where did it get you? With great information, not necessarily greater

understanding. But behind everything is the supreme leader, and

ultimately he is the final authority, but it is much more

complicated than that. The fact that Hassan Rouhani was allowed to

stand, and then got a much vigour vote than many people were

anticipating, is an indication of the desire by the Iranians people

for change. He is different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in terms of the

things that Ahmadinejad used to say in terms of wiping Israel off the

map, and denying the Holocaust. Iran has always said it's nuclear

programme is a peaceful bid to generate electricity. Most people do

not believe that. The real issue is this, as Mr Straw said. One is to

give the resident the space to negotiate earnestly. A six-month

window is a very short period of time. There are also all kinds of

power leaks within Iran right now. The situation is complicated. Going

with eyes wide open. But there are precedents of previous Iran

presidents, and in my new book on Hezbollah, one of the things I found

that I didn't use in the book because it is meant to be more about

Iran, the CIA looking back at these presidencies, what they found was

that none of the previous presidents were interested in

curbing support for terrorism, and if they were, this would be up to

the supreme leader. This is a different president. This is the

history of relatively moderate presidents in Iran. The Israelis

always deal with Iran very suspiciously because of previous

rhetoric and their fears about any sort of attack. But if Iran wants to

reach the status of a nuclear state, in which it could manufacture

a nuclear bomb quite quickly, how much risk are you prepared to take?

Well, the Middle East does already have on nuclear weapons state,

Israel. Not that anyone admits it. But we all know it. And they have

refused to accept any kind of sanction. I don't know whether Iran

have nuclear weapons system, and whether they developing it. But

their lack of candour, and trying to enrich uranium, raise very serious

questions about their intentions. Plutonium, too. Not just uranium.

And if they want to lift the sanctions, which unquestionably are

biting, and as for long-term agendas, we want to see a more

constructive role internationally. You have to have one step at a time,

and part of the strategy of the West needs to be to help and in power

Rohani. Thank you both very much. It's been a pleasure.

Vigorous and sometimes raucous campaigning is what you expect in a

vibrant democracy. But what happens when lies are told about rival

candidates, innuendo is spread, racist or anti-semitic campaigning

techniques are used? They've been an unfortunate feature of British

election campaigns, and an all-party report out today suggests such

practices are still prevalent. In a moment we'll hear from one of the

authors of that report, but first let's remind ourselves of some

memorable political campaigns. A 1983 by-election in Bermondsey was

mired in accusations of homophobia. The now Lib Dem deputy leader Simon

Hughes took on Labour candidate and gay rights campaigner Peter

Tatchell. One liberal leaflet presented the context is a straight

choice, and Simon Hughes on with one of the biggest recorded swings

against Labour. He later apologised for any part of the campaign which

had been homophobic. In 2005, Labour was accused of anti-Semitism when

they produced a poster which critics claimed portrayed the then

Conservative leader Michael Howard is fading. Labour said it was just

anti-Tory. Later, Labour's Oona King fought

George Galloway, who overturned a 10,000 majority. Oona King said she

faced anti-Semitism in what she described as one of the dirtiest

campaigns we have ever seen in British politics.

And 2010 saw a campaign which could change the way elections are fought.

Labour narrowly on old East and Saddleworth, but the result was

declared void by an election court, which ruled he had lied about his

Lib Dem opponent. And the author of that cross-party

report into the conduct of election campaigns, Natascha Engel, joins us

now. Some political campaigns have been dirty, it was ever thus. But

what of the worst examples that you have come across? Yes, right at the

outset, this was not about stopping people from campaigning robustly.

And it was not about curbing freedom of speech, that was another thing

that was very important. What we wanted to do was identify pieces of

political campaigning that were beyond the pale, and we heard really

distressing stories. The day after one candidate lost his seat in

Gloucester, his children found a severed pig's head in his garden.

That doesn't belong in politics. How'd you know that was a campaign

thing? It could have been a vindictive member of the public?

There had already been a concerted campaign against him where in the

local newspaper that had been a letter to say that the population of

Gloucester wasn't ready for a foreigner to represent them. He was

born in Middlesex. So it is that sort of campaigning that we are

really looking to stamp out. Why hasn't this been looked at before?

It has, but it was looked at expressly in terms of anti-Semitism,

in 2006 there was a report about anti-Semitism in electoral

campaigning. The electoral commission refused to do much about

it, or was certainly half-hearted about it, so we decided to widen out

the remit, identify if there really was a problem, and we found that if

there was a problem, we would put forward proposals.

What can you do to actually stamp it out? You want campaigns to be

robust. It is the crossing the line that is difficult to draw. That's

right. We have law, and it is obviously the cases where the law

has been broken, it can be difficult to know what to do. We want the

political parties to come together and decide that we have a cultural

shift in the way that we campaign, to make sure that we identify

clearly when things are overstepping the mark, but most of all what we

thought would be helpful was to have one person specifically responsible

in each political party for taking on a complaint and having a look

very quickly at whether there is something wrong. Shouldn't campaigns

coordinator is be the people who deal with this sort of thing?

I think this is a really good idea from Natascha. A compliance officer

ought to do this. I was subject to a vicious campaign in Blackburn. I

have Jewish blood in me. It was said that because I was Edu, no Muslims

should vote for me. And the chap who put these leaflets around was taken

before the criminal courts and convicted of an offence under

electoral law. So are those laws not working, then? The laws during an

election campaign are tighter than they are outside, so they need

better to be used. But I entirely accept, what Simon Hughes and his

friends got up to in Bermondsey, where they distributed badges which

said, I have been kissed by Peter Tatchell, was even more abject given

the fact that Simon Hughes subsequently accepted that he was

gay, but it would have been dreadful whether he was gay or straight. The

leaflet about Michael Howard was disgraceful, and there have been

Conservatives who were very upset. Did you say anything about it at the

time? I was unaware at the time. I have now fought nine elections. More

fool you! There is no need to go in for dirty campaigning. Not in

marginal seats? You need to look ahead to the election in 2015,

particularly looking at the coalition, whether there are

marginal seats, and they will be at each other. I think the public hate

negative campaigning. What they want to know is, what do you stand for,

where do you come from? The problem we identified was that there were

candidates who didn't want to come forward and say that they were being

negatively campaigned against for fear of being seen as weak or not

being up to the rough-and-tumble of election campaigning, when actually

this was stuff that was way over the line and was illegal. How do we stop

that from happening in the first place and get out those sort of

messages? Dirty campaigning doesn't really work, it backfires. And

winning out of a dirty campaign, it takes something out of your soul.

The price is far too high. We wanted to bring parties together and have a

really positive framework for action. Natascha Engel, thank you

very much. An unlikely pairing were the stars

of a BBC One documentary last night. Tommy Robinson was the leader of the

English Defence League, or EDL, who have campaigned against what they

see as the "Islamification" of Britain. Tommy meets prominent

British Muslim Mo Ansar, who wants the EDL banned. The film ends with

Tommy Robinson's shock decision to leave the EDL. Here's a taster of

what happened when Tommy met Mo. In a democracy, when you are angry,

you protest. You should use your freedom of assembly, which is what

we will be doing today. If an Englishman commits a crime, throws a

bottle at the police, or commits a crime or gives a Nazi salute,

bottle at the police, or commits a That won't happen. You have said

yourself there are strange types in the EDL. If somebody commits a crime

today, is it right for us to blame all English people? It is just a yes

or no question. If the people pick up a book and it says throw a bottle

at the police officer, and they do it, it is the book's fault. Do you

accept that you are adding to fear and hysteria causing attacks on

Muslims? And Mo Ansar joins us now in the

studio. What do you think persuaded Tommy Robredo them to leave the

English Defence League? I hope it was a combination of factors. I

think 18 months with me is more than enough to force most people out of

most occupations! I think spending time with people from a diverse

range of Muslims, hearing different views. I think going to a mosque was

important. You could have knocked him over with a feather after that.

And did you change your views of him and VE Day after making that

documentary? I think Tommy has been quite clear that he hasn't shifted

in his views after that. I did have an impression of him. I had painted

him as some kind of Goebbels figure for the 21st-century, and... And was

he like that? Spending time with somebody always humanises them, and

there are soft sides to him, and although I think the effect it has

had on music -- Moslem communities has been disturbing, he is a complex

character. The interesting thing about

documentary is that your views what also challenged by other Muslims.

They don't necessarily think you are a good spokesperson for moderate

Islam. You accept that? Do they -- I accept that they think that. I have

been working as head of diversity for an organisation, and you do

things like equal rights, and stand up for women and gay rights as well.

Let's take some of those issues. You are challenged on sharia law on

whether you approve of these being punished by having their hands

chopped off, and you refused to give a definitive answer. I think it is

abhorrent. That one up. We did have that conversation, it's just doesn't

make that to the public sphere. And if slaves were treated justly and

with no rights whatsoever, why would anyone object? You were challenged

on this last night. Twitter is an open forum where people can

challenge. You think that if slaves are treated justly and with full

rights, there is problem with it? If we had a three-day debate about

slavery a year ago. It was about the historical context in ancient times.

I hope it was quite an academic debate. Are you saying there are

some instances when slavery is OK? No. I think there should be no

slavery. I think that would be obvious. But you indicate that there

are circumstances when... If you want to analyse something that

happened hundreds of years ago, there should be academic freedom to

debate those things. You mentioned women and gay rights. Tom Holland

was in the documentary. He said is lamb, -- is lamb needed to be

reformed. Do you agree? To an extent. If we are talking about

Reformation, the Reformation required is with Ms limbs are not

necessarily Islam. How are you... I hope you're not saying that

Christians are the best example. I am merely talking about Islam. What

about this cool to modernise or liberalise parts of Islam? I think

he is talking about a Reformation in Islam as we had in Christianity.

There is a great debate going on in Islam about how you relate what is

in the Koran and then in the commentaries to a modern-day

setting. The idea that there is one single school of thought in Islam is

nonsensical. There is no single school of thought in Christianity.

One of the things that has come out from what Mo says, although it is my

language, is that a lot of the practices in Islam, I fact -- are in

fact cultural. The position of women is cultural, based on subs with

commentaries. -- subsequent commentaries. In my surgery, I say I

would prefer them to remove the Vale. I also say to them, I will

honour their right to wear the veil, but it makes it easy if I can see

their face. I have been outspoken about Peter Holub own and several

Wollaston. -- Peter Holub own and several Wollaston.

What about young gills wearing the veil? -- young girls. I understand

that. I had a long conversation with my wife about this. She is from

Finland. She has a very European view, as do I. My view was,

actually, each to their own. If parents and kids want to decide

that, it is not my cup of tea, but they can do it. The headscarf is

about identity. Headscarf, fine. We are talking about the veil. I'm not

a fan but do we legislate? We should say, as a norm, that it is not a

good idea. The former MP said more could be done to stop young girls

being groomed for sex. One of the discussions we had, I spent three

hours talking to the mothers and the families of victims of grooming and

with members of the England defence league near to Blackburn. Part of

the conversation was, we have a problem in society generally. In the

UK, 200 women are abused or raped every day. They come from all

races. Mo, don't dodge the issue, with respect. There are more white

people locked up for sex offences than Muslims. There is a specific

pub in the Muslim community will -- with the way women are treated and

the young men come forward with a view of women. That can turn to lead

what we have seen with grooming, where groups of predominates

Pakistani men are grooming young girls. -- predominantly. We have

seen organisations be very outspoken. But they haven't done

enough until now. There is complacency on all sides. Thank you

very much. You might think that having a politician for a parent

would put you off West Mr for life. I suspect in many cases it has. --

Westminster. Jack Straw to be the -- could be the next father to hand the

political baton to his son. My stature has grown. 1995, and Patrick

Jenkin is called to speak. Only it's not Patrick but his son on his feet.

Perhaps we can forgive, on this occasion. Lord Jenkins and only left

the Commons five years before his son arrived. Today, Westminster has

20 MPs whose fathers were also in the Commons. You might say it is in

their blood. A relatively new entrant to the Westminster family

tree is the Conservative Laura Sands was on her father, Duncan, was a

government minister in the 50s and 60s. When I was born, I had a pram

which said, vote for daddy on the side. I was pretty much a recruit

from a force to volunteer from a young age. -- a recruit, a force to

volunteer. Children following their parents into politics is not new. We

all remember our former Prime Minister William Gladstone, but

perhaps not his son, Herbert, who became Home Secretary in 1905. Fast

forward more than half a century and Douglas, now Lord Hurd, an MP in the

70s, 80s and 90s, has been followed into the Commons by his son, who is

currently a junior minister. Then there is the prominent Tony Benn,

here campaigning in the 1963 by-election. His son, Hillary, was a

Secretary of State under the Labour Prime Minister 's Blair and Brown.

And this father son duo are both still grow much active in

Westminster. Lindsay Hoyle is a deputy speaker. His father is a

former Labour MP. The first impression was a Labour Party

Conference, he was out delivering leaflets. I was the cheap Labour.

I've always got that eastern memory. I was scarred for life. Did you

encourage him to go into politics? Well, I hoped he might become an MP.

It was up to him. He was not influenced by ourselves. We try to

be as normal a family as you could. As for the latest additions, Jack

Straw's son has been elected as a Labour candidate for the

neighbouring constituency to his dad. John Prescott's son David hopes

to be contesting Greenwich and Woolwich, and there are even rumours

that Tony Blair's son is eyeing up a seat for the 20 15th election. And

with us to discuss this is Matthew Parris. Before I come to you, are

you pleased your son might be following you into Parliament? Yes,

but he is doing it on his own merits. He is gay to have a tougher

fight and to Blackburn. -- he's going to have. I don't think you

would do well to draw favours by saying that Jack is going to hand

the baton onto him. I think there is a strong undercurrent in British

culture of resentment against, you know, it is not what you know, it is

who you know. In America, they don't have a Royal Family so they

reproduce it in their politics. But we do. I think, although he is your

son will have got him hearings, from now on it is good to be a

disadvantage that he is your son. People are going to think he is only

there because he is Jack Straw's son. But it is in the blood, it is

in the dinner table speech. That is the reason, rather than there might

be a case of, yes, there is some help being offered. It is there all

the time. I am not an eligible engineer like my father. It is

different. -- an electrical engineer. I don't think there is

much you can do to get your child a seat. But the public think there is.

They don't like it. There may be advantages in having a dad like me,

but when it comes to politics, there are only disadvantages. On this

thing families and politics, my family talked about politics all the

time. But they were obscure, not known. I had no baggage when I was

trying to make my way in politics. You have got something to live up

to. It is difficult, I would say. I know his son and he is brilliant. It

will be difficult for him to live up to his father. What I would like to

see is the reverse. If Boris Johnson and his brother could get their

father to stand, he would be a great addition to the House of Commons. If

you think Boris was colourful, try Stan! Just time before we go to find

out the answer to our quiz. If you can remember, the question for today

was, what our Parliamentary authorities planning to spend

?250,000 on? Upgrading the gym? Straightening Big Ben? Raising the

speaker chair? Or refurbishing the bars? I think it is the gym. That is

terrific. I use it on a regular basis. Do you? ! Absolutely.

Spinning a body blast, yoga... It is in the old cell block of a police

station. You are right. It is the gym. I'm glad you're using it.

Thanks to all of the our guest today. From all of us here, goodbye.